Thomas Phinney wrote:
> Steve's proposal seems sound. But I don't think his names are much
> better than the original: those names tell me even less about what the
> feature might do, and like the original name could apply to any feature.
> Maybe "glyph-position" or perhaps "text-position"?
When working on math typesetting fonts, we discovered that the term
'script-style' was fairly common to refer to superscript and subscript
glyphs. My only concern with recommending it in this instance, is that
the term 'script' is already overloaded, but it still strikes me as more
precise than 'character-transform' or 'glyph-position', which could mean
anything and everything.
John Hudson